ChapterPDF Available

Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale and Folklore of These Cultures

Authors:
  • Scientific Roots (PTY) Ltd

Abstract and Figures

This study investigates the role of goats in the myths and folklore of various Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures. Images in artefacts, and metaphors or direct reference to goats in texts (the primary sources in this study) from the geographic area of Mesopotamia, Sumer, Akkad, Anatolia and Ancient Iran (Elam) were studied. Secondary sources provided the context within which the sources occurred. Where images and references to goats occurred, their meaning and relationship to belief systems or their underlying 'motifs' within the ANE cultures are identified, categorised and discussed. This study shows that aside from the important utilitarian function of goats in the ANE, their use in rituals and symbolism has provided us with several motifs related to goats that are still in use today. These include the motifs of fertility, intelligence and craftiness.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index
in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)
Interested in publishing with us?
Contact book.department@intechopen.com
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Open access books available
Countries delivered to Contributors from top 500 universities
International authors and editor s
Our authors are among the
most cited scientists
Downloads
We are IntechOpen,
the world’s leading publisher of
Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists
12.2%
116,000
120M
TOP 1%
154
3,900
Chapter
Goats in the Ancient Near East
and Their Relationship with the
Mythology, Fairytale and Folklore
of These Cultures
MeridaRoets
Abstract
This study investigates the role of goats in the myths and folklore of various
Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures. Images in artefacts, and metaphors or direct
reference to goats in texts (the primary sources in this study) from the geographic
area of Mesopotamia, Sumer, Akkad, Anatolia and Ancient Iran (Elam) were stud-
ied. Secondary sources provided the context within which the sources occurred.
Where images and references to goats occurred, their meaning and relationship to
belief systems or their underlying ‘motifs’ within the ANE cultures are identified,
categorised and discussed. This study shows that aside from the important utilitar-
ian function of goats in the ANE, their use in rituals and symbolism has provided
us with several motifs related to goats that are still in use today. These include the
motifs of fertility, intelligence and craftiness.
Keywords: goat, Ancient Near East, mythology, cultures
. Introduction
Man is essentially a myth-maker—using myths, folklore, fable and legend to
contextualise the society in which he lives. Since goats have been a companion of
man in the midst of his society since the dawn of civilisation, it is only logical that
goats feature in oral tradition. Oral tradition that, over millennia, has been captured
in the written myths, legends, epics, fable and fairy tales that we know today.
Many cultures have used goats in stories that portray various social constructs of
their times. But here, it may be important to first digress and provide some analysis
of the different types of folklore. Folktales, specifically, can be compared across
cultures through recurring ideas or ‘motifs’ (dominant themes), which are defined
by the political, economic and religious discourse of the time. Motifs may be situa-
tions, actions, events, characters or objects. Very often, the motifs are abstractions
or models, the details being secondary and differing according to the variant: thus
the typical situation (motif) of the hero outwitting the stupid giant or giants is the
same whether the hero is a god, a prince, a young huntsman, a retired soldier or the
Three Billy Goats Gruff. The purse of gold may be a jug of oil that never empties,
the bird that lays the golden eggs, a plant that provides eternal life or the little goat
that bleats causing a table laden with food to appear to the melancholic (but always
Goats (Capra)
attractive), ill-treated, stepsister [1]. It can be said that once we have identified the
motif behind a folktale, we can then determine whether the goat has been used as
a cursory object to creatively illustrate the story or whether the goat is the actual
subject of the story.
Very often, in folktales, goats are used for creative illustration (sometimes the
goat could just as well have been a pig, cow or chicken). But, other times, goats
convey a specific meaning to the story and play a role in the motif that cannot be as
accurately illustrated by another animal [2].
Folklore includes popular traditions, legendary ballads, local proverbial sayings,
superstitions, old customs, folktales, legends, games, sports and nursery rhymes.
Edward Clodd believed that the chief function of folklore was to explore the sav-
age beliefs and practices underlying established religion. However, folktales also
provide insight into human psychology through their underlying meaning [3].
Myth is generally distinguished from legends and fairy tales in that the former
addresses cosmic themes such as the creation of the world, the beginning of life and
the origins of civilisation. They may have arisen as embellished accounts of historical
events, as a means to justify religious ritual or as metaphor or representation of natural
phenomena [4]. Mythic stories are enacted on a supernatural scale: heroes of myth are
gods and superhumans. Heroes of fairy tales and legends are ordinary men and women
[2] although magic and fantastic animals, creatures or events may be involved.
Fables are a somewhat different genre. It is generally thought that fables were
the creation of the slave Aesop who lived on the island of Samos in the sixth century
BC.He won the favour of Croesus, king of Lydia, (and his freedom) by telling
stories [5]. Aesops fables have an industrious, efficient style, always ending with a
moral. They are mainly for adult enjoyment and generally depict animals’ instinc-
tive behaviour in humanistic terms: the ant is industrious, the fox is crafty, and
the tortoise is slow. Fable ‘morals’ or ‘motifs’ are centred on the notion that ‘life is a
constant struggle’ and of ‘survival of the fittest’ [2].
Whereas fables are indifferent and realistic, the animals of European fairy tale
are more compassionate and magical. Fairy tales are generally more optimistic
and joyful than fables (although this is disputed by some and proven by some
stories with unhappy endings [6]), are characterised by a lack of realism, are not
believed by those who tell them and generally aim to teach [2]. Fables tend to depict
animals as merciless and irresponsible, while fairy tales make them intelligent and
benevolent. Fables tend to depict animals in terms of behaviourism, while the fairy
tale reminds one of the analytical psychologies of Freud or Jung [2]. A distinction
has been made that fairy tale and myth bring animals closer to men, while fables
and satire, while seemingly doing the same thing, do the reverse; they are conflict-
ridden and put animals in their place—as submissive to humans [2].
However, as we may all have experienced, the interaction with a live animal is
a very fundamental and personal encounter, which largely negates the limitations
often imposed by cultural perception. Thus, the goat, being an animal of unique
intelligence, virility and behaviour, so close to man because of its usefulness and
hardiness, has characteristics that have been described in the same way among dif-
ferent cultures. The goat is depicted as a symbol of fertility, abundance, aggression
and good luck in many of these civilisations.
These cross-cultural similarities and differences are of interest but, also, the
changes in how these animals are depicted over time warrant scrutiny. It is surely
modifications in human and social conditions that create or cause these fluctuations
in how goats are depicted because the character of goats is a genetic rather than an
environmental manifestation.
This chapter investigates the role played by goats in the myths and folklore of
various Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures. To this effect, images in artefacts,
Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale and…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531
and metaphors or direct reference to goats in texts (to be considered the primary
sources in this study) from the area are studied. Secondary sources provided the
context within which the sources occur. Where images and references to goats
occur, their meaning and relationship to belief systems or their underlying ‘motifs’
within the ANE cultures are identified and discussed. Ultimately, this chapter aims
to determine whether ANE cultures ascribed certain characteristics to goats that
may still be applicable today.
. Materials and methods
Although the array of domesticated animals is vast, this analysis investigates
primarily goats (and similar species such as the ibex where relevant or where
ambiguity occurs) in the myth, folklore and fairy tale (if these can be defined) of
the Near Eastern cultures of Mesopotamia, Sumer, Akkad, Anatolia and Ancient
Iran (Elam). The timespan that is covered by this chapter is approximately
3000years. It is acknowledged that this is too vast an expanse to make specific
inferences about the impact of the goat on the political, social or religious contexts
within which goat symbolism may occur, nor can one surmise at the influence that
this political, social or religious context makes on the way the goat is considered in
society.
. The domestication and use of goats (and other species)
It is believed that wild animals were herded into enclosures for killing to improve
on the success of hunting—images depicting this practice have been found [7].
After a time, animals that exhibited certain characteristics that would make them
predisposed to domestication became accustomed to this close contact. This close
association between man and animal led to the domestication [8] of some species
(but not others). These ‘phases of domestication’ can be categorised into ‘wild’,
‘managed’ and domesticated’ [9] states.
Jared Diamond [10] has suggested several characteristics that would predispose
certain species to domestication, and these include:
• High fertility and reproductive rate and a fast growth rate
• Animals that can be herded and handled without becoming aggressive
Animals that are adaptable to a range of environments and feedstuffs that are
not directly in competition with mans diet
• Animals with a docile nature that are not prone to flightiness or skittishness
• Animals that naturally move in herds, and submit to a pack leader
In all these characteristics, the goat excels.
According to Gilbert [11], wild sheep (Ovis) and goats (Capra) were the
earliest livestock domesticated during the Palaeolithic to Neolithic transition
(9000–7000B.C.E.) in northern and eastern Mesopotamia. Pigs (Sus) and cattle
(Bos) were predominantly domesticated in southern Mesopotamia. Later introduc-
tions included horses (Equus 2500B.C.E.), donkeys (Equus 4000–3000B.C.E.) and
chickens (Gallus gallus 1500B.C.E.).
Goats (Capra)
Recent research [12] has placed the process of the domestication of goats in
the region of south-western Asia, from the eastern Mediterranean to Turkey and
from the southern Levant though south-eastern Turkey and northern Syria to
the high Zagros mountain pastures and arid lowland plains of Iraq and Iran. The
process of domestication spanned approximately 500years—culminating around
8000B.C.E.Zeder and Hesse [12] identified a distinct profile of young male goat
slaughter and prolonged female survivorship (or delayed slaughter of females)
in herds in the upland areas of northern Iraq and north-western Iran through
the analysis of goat remains. Animal production involves the practice of keeping
females for breeding and slaughtering males at a younger age for meat. This is in
contrast to the remains of hunted populations, which clearly show a focus on fully
adult males with females and young taken only occasionally.
The ancestors of the modern goat were potentially two species, Capra falconeri,
and the Bezoar goat, Capra aegagrus [13], being the most cited candidate (Capra
hircus aegagrus is still found in its wild form in the Zagros mountains of Iran and Iraq).
Most of the domesticated animals we know today originated in the Ancient Near
East. These include cattle, goats, pigs, sheep, cats, dogs, ducks, chickens, geese,
horses, donkeys and mules [8]. Their use for milk, meat, fat, leather, wool, hair,
draught, transportation, manure [8], cheese [9], the storage of wealth [11], eggs
[9], recreational (and possibly educational) zoos [9], drugs [9] and for religious use
(sacrifice, extispicy and for maintenance of the religious complex) is documented.
Sheep and goats were kept in large flocks that belonged to the state, the temple
or private owners and each was branded with its owner’s mark (or that of the god
for which it was intended). Clearly articulated contracts between owners and
shepherds have been found. Shepherds often kept all the dairy products and some
of the wool as compensation for their work. Their compensation could also include
a share of the growth in the flock. Figure  shows terracotta tablets inscribed with
the records of goatherds and cowherds [14].
Wool (from sheep) and hair (from goats) were initially plucked (pulled or combed),
but shearing was practised from the middle of the second millennium. Milk was
obtained from cows, sheep and goats (camels and water buffalo were also used for this
purpose). Yoghurt, cheese, butter and ghee were produced. Butter was made by churn-
ing the milk in a narrow-necked jar [7] and rolled with the foot or rocked [9]. Since
fresh milk spoiled rapidly, it was often only used in medicines, which would be made
fresh and used immediately. Figure  shows a cylinder seal from Mari with a typical
agricultural scene. Many such seals have been found, which may indicate the economic
activity in which the owner of the seal may have distinguished him (or her)self.
Figure 1.
Terracotta tablets inscribed with the records of goatherds (left) and cowherds (right), unearthed at Lagash,
Mesopotamia, and dated to 2250–2175B.C.E. (housed in the collection at the Louvre, Paris: [17]).
Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale and…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531
Although horses were important in battle, goats were often taken as booty (Figure )
and inflated goat skin bags were used in warfare as flotation devices (Figure ).
. Goats in the texts, art and imagery of the ANE
Primary sources available to the modern scholar of the ANE cultures include
objects, architecture and written texts that have survived environmental extremes.
This investigation seeks to determine whether, if goats appear in these material
Figure 2.
Cylinder seal from Mari (3000–2000B.C.E.). Top register showing milking scene, bottom register with goats,
hero figures and eagle with lion-head.
Figure 3.
Stone panel from the central palace of Tiglath-Pileser III.Neo-Assyrian, 730–727B.C.E.Nimrud (ancient
Kalhu), northern Iraq (housed in the British Museum).
Figure 4.
Goat skins used as flotation devices. Stone panel from the central palace of Tiglath-Pileser III.Neo-Assyrian,
730–727B.C.E.Nimrud (ancient Kalhu), northern Iraq (housed in the British Museum).
Goats (Capra)
artefacts, there is some indication that they were considered more than merely useful
as a livestock species with utilitarian value but also as an object in myth, legend or fairy
tale.
. Goats in ANE literature
Several texts excavated from ancient Mesopotamia refer to animals in general
[15]. These can be categorised into the following types:
• Wordlists
• Omen collections (omina) (including guidelines involving extispicy and
apotropaic rituals)
Myths
• Short, functional fables, with no expressed moral
• Personified animals in longer narrative fables, debates or contests
• Mentioned in propagandistic literature as being subjugated, hunted, collected,
etc. by the king.
• The consumption of animals (as well as recipes)
• In humorous and ironic anecdotes.
For several of these categories, examples were found in a collection of Sumerian
inscriptions [16, 17]. If evident, this categorisation is shown and possible explana-
tions for the texts are provided in parentheses.
• Page 99. 3.111—‘Although it has never gone there, the goat knows the waste-
land’ (Category: ironic anecdote. Possible explanation: a goat has instinct to
survive in the desert, or a goat is intelligent—this perhaps relates to the idea of
someone having a gut feeling’ about something)
• Page 101. 3.123—‘May you hold a kid in your right arm and may you hold a
bribe in your left arm’ (Category: ironic anecdote. Possible explanation: the
kid can be brought as an offering—to request a favour from the god—but if the
offering does not work, you also can back it up with a bribe to the priest who
can implore the god on your behalf. This is interesting, since it suggests that
people were quite aware that priests could ‘bend the rules’ if requested/moti-
vated to do so).
• Page 106. 3.153—‘The goat spoke in the manner of a (wise) old woman, but
acted in the manner of an unclean woman’ (Category: ironic anecdote. Possible
explanation: goats are considered intelligent, but they are bawdy and eat every-
thing including unclean things, which make them unclean. Here, the sexual
nature of the goat is identified).
• Page 128. 5.55—‘A lion had caught a helpless she-goat’ (and she said), ‘Let
me go and I will give you my fellow ewe in return.’ ‘If I let you go, tell me first
your name!’ The she-goat answered the lion, ‘You don’t know my name? “I am
Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale and…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531
cleverer than you” is my name.’ After the lion had come to the sheepfold he
roared, ‘I released you!’ She answered from the other side, ‘You released me,
you are clever,… the sheep are not here!’ (Category: narrative contest. Possible
explanation: again showing the intelligence of the goat. Alster [16, 17] suggests
that this is the Sumerian fable that resembles closest to a trueAesopian’ one.
The Sumerian fables provide a definite answer to the much discussed question,
whether or not the fable as a genre was invented by the Greeks. Although the
genre is now proven to be considerably older than the Greeks, it does not neces-
sarily mean, however, that it was first invented in Mesopotamia).
Page 167. 8.Sec.B4.—‘Wearing a long beard like a goat’ (Category: humorous
anecdote. Possible explanation: merely a physical description of a ‘goatee’ beard)
• Page 167. 8.Sec.B5.—‘A goat is the gift of a large kid’ (Category: ironic anecdote.
Possible explanation: goats can reproduce at a very young age—as young as
4months).
• Page 167. 8.Sec.B6.—“A goat speaks as follows to another goat: I also toss my
head.” (Category: ironic anecdote. Possible explanation: animals of the same
species are likely to behave in the same way. Or, people of a certain character
can identify with another person of the same character, that is, it takes one to
know one).
• Page 169. 8.Sec.B8—‘When the wolves were pursuing a goat, it turned around,
and its feet stumbled over its own feet’ (Category: humorous anecdote.
Possible explanation: a goat is ‘tripsy-footed’?)
• Page 171. 8.Sec.B28.—‘A fox spoke to a goat, “Let me put my shoes in your
house!” The goat answered, “When the dog comes, let me hang them on a
nail!” The fox answered, “If the dog stays like that in your house, bring me my
shoes. Let me not stay till midnight!”’ (Category: narrative contest. Possible
explanation: this dialogue again suggests the intelligence of the goat in being
able to outwit another creature).
. Goats in ANE artefacts and imagery
Goats are evident in the mythology of ANE as shown in various imagery. Two
types of artefacts are available to the art historian [18]: objects in the round and
two-dimensional objects. Objects carved in the round include figurines, theriomor-
phic vessels and weights. Figurines and animal-shaped vessels were often rendered
in baked clay and rhyta (singular rhyton) in metal. Many of these objects were
used in the temple complexes as votive objects (being brought as tribute to a god),
as apotropaic figures (buried underneath the floors of buildings to ward off evil),
were used during religious ceremonies or were used to weigh the produce brought
to the temple by the citizens who formed part of the distributive temple economies.
Two-dimensional objects included low-relief stelae, perforated panels in stone
or ceramic, tablets and hollow carved stamps or cylinder seals. These objects had
decorative use in temple architecture (stelae and panels). Tablets were used as
administrative tools (to record numbers of livestock or produce), to train scribes, to
capture true literature and royal inscriptions or to write letters. Stamps and cylinder
seals were personal signatures used to identify objects or show ownership [19].
A general search for images of goats on ANE artefacts was undertaken. This
was done through a search of archaeological research papers and books, which
Goats (Capra)
either provided references to relevant artefacts or showed photographs or tracings
of artefacts. Where these items were considered important but the images were
unclear, higher quality images were sought. Museum collections that have been
made available for public viewing via the Internet were also examined.
This was followed by a classification and comparison of the images of the vari-
ous artefacts.
To provide structure to the comparison, images that depict a similar theme or
‘motif’ were grouped. To this effect, a method was sought to provide some meaning
to a classification. Whereas some scholars have argued that the depiction of animals
in Mesopotamian art illustrates the start of religion, others have argued that animals
provide merely a symbolic representation of the world as the artist saw it. However, it
must be agreed that there must be multiple levels of meaning. To this end, the system
provided by Root [20] to classify the use of animals in art is used here. An approxi-
mate seriation within each group was also undertaken (although it is conceded that
the chronology provided by scholars commenting on these pieces is assumed correct,
which may not necessarily be the case). The groupings made are discussed below.
.. Group A: goats as vehicles for experimentation with abstraction and decorative
compositional dynamic
The goat lends itself to abstraction and decoration with its curved horns and
upturned tail—this is especially the case in the use of the goat (or ibex) in the art
of Ancient Anatolia. The depiction of goats in Mesopotamian art is often stereo-
typical, allowing one to assume that sketchbooks were used and artists trained
in standard doctrines. In the artefacts of this group, the artists have attempted
to depict goats in their most recognisable form (Figures  and ). These include
full profile; walking, or standing with their horned heads shown from the side;
or lying down. Mostly, single animals are shown. Where goats are not shown
entirely, they are suggested by parts of their body, such as horns in the goat-head
rhyton (Figure ).
Figure 5.
Elamite mountain goat from Susa, 3100–2900B.C.E. (housed in the Louvre, Paris).
Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale and…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531
Although the objects and images shown here have been placed in the category of
‘abstraction and decorative composition’ because they are particularly striking, some
inferences regarding their symbolism can be made. Firstly, these objects may have
Figure 6.
A baked clay pot, sporting a goat, from Umma which is dated to the Amorite dynasty of the nineteenth–
eighteenth century B.C.E. (housed at the Louvre, Paris: [17]).
Figure 7.
(a) Burnished pottery rhyton in the form of a goat’s head from Iran (Elam) that is dated to 1000B.C.E.
(b and c) Earthenware goat rhyton dated to between 1000 and 2000B.C.E. (All housed at the Sankokan
University, Japan).
Goats (Capra)

served as votive objects, as apotropaic figurines or as libation vessels (as part of a ritual
in which characteristics of the animal depicted are expected to be imbibed by the
drinker). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in both objects of Figures  and ,
the goat is shown with its right leg foremost. As Green [21] suggests in a paper dealing
with apotropaic figurines (that lead with the left foot), this may be the beginnings of
the custom of entering a holy place with the right foot first.
.. Group B: goats as players in specific rituals of human society
Generally, ancient Mesopotamian gods were human in form. But both demonic
and virtuous creatures were often depicted as animal-human hybrids. Specific ani-
mals were associated with certain gods and often became their symbols [9]. Thus,
the dog was associated with Gula, the god of healing; the lion-snake-eagle with
Marduk and the goat-fish with Ea (or Enki) [9]. Hatziminaglou and Boyazoglu [22],
however, state that goats were sacred to Marduk and is often pictured accompanied
by a goat (unfortunately, they do not reference this statement and are perhaps
confusing images of Ea with Marduk).
Goats were an important element of divining the future [9, 23]: firstly, through
unsolicited omens or observations (as from the omen list ‘If a City is Situated on
an Elevation’ where both domesticated and wild animals were used) and secondly,
through solicited omens through extispicy (reading of entrails) or merely a ritual
involving an animal that did not necessarily involve its slaughter.
Where a god had an associated animal, as is the case, for example, with Ea or
Enki, worshippers could bring tribute to a god either by the live goat itself or in the
form of their animal statue (these votive objects could be clay, gold, bronze and/
or sliver), or in the form of a figure bringing the goat tribute. Images and figurines
depicting this practice (shown in Figure ) are referred to by modern scholars as
‘goat bearers’ (British Museum). It is interesting to note the abundance of the goat
bearer’ imagery over several cultures (Sumerian, Anatolian, Assyrian and Elamite)
and over a long expanse of time. Further examples can be found in the work of
Marchesi and Marchetti [24], which shows more than five examples from several
Early Dynastic Mesopotamian sites.
Comparison of these images reveals that all the goat bearers have goatees or beards
and all but one (from Zincirli carrying the goat on his neck) bear the goats in his arms.
This may be important since, as Breniquet [18] mentions, very often the animal used to
represent the god in visual material or in association with him shares the facial features
or appearance (physiognomy) and behaviour of the god. The placement of the animal
with the god renders the reading unequivocal and is part of the essence of the god.
According to Heinsohn [25], tribute was not so much to the god but to the priests
themselves who managed the temple complex, as thanks for the role played by the
priest in the act of sacrifice (it could be dangerous), as well as for absorbing the
guilt for the killing itself (an act created to calm an emotionally traumatised com-
munity—initially following a cataclysmic event). It seems that ritual sacrifice was
abandoned when further cataclysmic events no longer occurred and thus sacrifice
(used to placate an anxious community) was no longer necessary. At this point,
votive objects may have replaced tributes of live animals.
Although modern scholars refer to these images asgoat bearers’ (British
Museum; [16]), it is not clear from, nor mentioned in, the literature whether these
statues represent worshippers, priests or the god Ea (Enki) himself. Where the goat
bearers form part of a scene where other tribute is being brought, it seems clear that
the goat bearer is indeed a worshipper or tribute-payer; however, where the images
are solitary, the identity of the bearer is ambiguous.

Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale and…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531
Whole herds of animals were kept for their gods by their temples and branded
with their marks [9, 23]. One can assume that when live animals were replaced
by votive objects as tributes, then, these same herds would not have been used as
sacrificial animals, but as a means to support the attendants of the temple complex
and to redistribute to the community.
Animals were also used as the recipients of evil transferred from a human host,
what we know today as the ‘scapegoat’ ritual [23]. This ‘transferral’ of the evil
(whether bad luck or an illness) could be achieved through the patient handling the
animal, by the performance of a ritual and then letting the animal go (into a waste-
land or a river), by the performance of a ritual and then slaughtering the animal
and burying it (or discarding its remains in a river or wasteland, or by splitting the
animal in half and passing between the two halves) or by the patient spitting on
Figure 8.
(a) Plaque from Nippur, temple of In’anak (early dynastic I (3000–2330B.C.E.)) [27]. (b) A worshipper
carrying kids from Susa, middle Elamite, thirteenth century B.C.E. (housed in the Louvre, Paris: [17])
(c) from the citadel gate of Zincirli 900–800B.C.E. ([26]: Plate XV) (d) apotropaic protective spirit guarding
entrance to private chambers, from Nimrud (ancient Kalhu), northern Iraq, neo-Assyrian, 883–859BC.His
curled moustache, long hair and beard are typical of figures of this date. Carrying goat and ear of corn (housed
in the British Museum).
Goats (Capra)

it, or eating it, or being covered with it (its blood), or by merely having the animal
in proximity to the affected person. The scapegoat ritual was often used by the
military and sometimes by cities to remove the scourge of a plague [27].
Animal figurines could be used for scapegoat rituals or as apotropaic figurines
that were buried under the floors of domestic dwellings, barracks or temples to
ward off evil [21]. Elaborate rituals describing an array of figurines to use (includ-
ing the goat-fish), and the numbers of figurines that are required, have been
documented [21].
.. Group C: goats as signifiers of specific political/social ideas of human society
The name ‘Enki’ literally means Lord, en, of the earth or the netherworld, ki, the
patron deity of the apkallus (fish-men), who lived in the underground sweetwaters,
the Abzu (Sumerian) or Apsu (Akkadian) [28]. In this imagery, the god Enki/Ea
was associated with theSacred tree’ (often erroneously called the ‘Tree of life’).
The Anzu/Apsu was considered, a not altogether unpleasant intermediary place,
between the earth and the netherworld (almost literally the place of spring water
from which life springs). This idea may be suggested by the imagery of the goat in
the tree (as shown in Figure ). This was possibly a libation device, and used as
temple furniture.
What is important to note here is that although the goat in the tree represents a
certain idea known to the community (Enki and the Sacred tree), and goat imagery is
used in furniture or libation devices, the animals themselves were not worshipped [18].
.. Group D: goats as figures in cosmic contests and ‘performances’
Two examples of the use of goats in this manner were found.
Figure 9.
The lapis-lazulli goat buck in the tree from the Royal Cemetery at Ur, belonging to the Uruk period c
2600–2500B.C.E. was probably temple furniture—possibly a stand (housed in the British Museum).

Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale and…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531
... Ishtar or the mistress of the beasts?
In Anatolian art and folklore, a ‘mistress of the beasts’ occurs, often associated
with the hunt. This mistress (and sometimes master) is associated with a feline
(usually a lion) and a wild goat, ibex or gazelle [29]. This goddess may have been
Cybele (or Dali in Armenia) and may also be related to the goddess associated with
the hunt of the Caucasus (Georgians who are believed to be descendants of the
Hittites) who is always associated with goats, ibex or turs (Capra cylindricornis or
Capra [ibex] caucasica) [30]. However, representations showing similar iconog-
raphy (a female figure associated with goats and lions or hunting or warfare) are
attributed by some scholars as Ishtar: the goddess of warfare and sexuality. Some of
these artefacts are shown in Figures  and .
... Enki/Ea
The myths that incorporate Ea (or Enki) are of particular significance here since
the primary sources reveal him to be associated with the goat. The spouse of Ea was
Damkina and his cult centre was Eridu. Marduk was Eas son. During the Kassite
Figure 10.
Goddess seated on a goat over two lions from Kultepe, Anatolia, from the Middle Bronze Age, 2000–1595B.C.E.
[37].
Figure 11.
Queen of animals feeds her wild goats, thirteenth B.C.E., from tomb III, Minet el-Beida, harbour of Ugarit,
Syria. Lid of pyxis (round box with lid) (housed in the Louvre).
Goats (Capra)

period, Marduk was elevated to the top of the Babylonian pantheon and his cult
centre was Babylon [19].
Ea plays a role in several of the Mesopotamian myths. In the Epic of Gilgamesh,
where aside from being mentioned as one of the gods that have made Gilgamesh wise,
he is the god that breaks rank and warns the human Ut-napishtim (whom Gilgamesh
seeks to reveal the secret of eternal life since Ut-napishtim survived the flood and has
been made immortal) of the impending flood sent by the gods to destroy man. This
role of Enki is again shown in the myth of Atrahasis, the Flood story. Here too, Enki
warns man about the flood and gives him instruction to build a boat.
Enki plays a larger role in the Epic of Creation. Here, it is explained, in the
beginning, there were only two gods, Apsu (who represents the primordial waters
under the earth) and Tiamat (the personification of the sea). They beget four
generations of gods, who become noisy and unbearable. Apsu decides to put an end
to their troublesome ways, but the plot is discovered by Ea ‘who knows everything’.
He puts Apsu and his evil vizier, Mummu, to sleep and then slays them. He then
assumes the belt, crown and mantle of radiance, takes over the dwelling place of
Apsu as his own, and there, with his spouse Damkina, creates Marduk. Marduk
then proceeds to win all sorts of fantastic battles with the encouragement of his
father, Ea, and is finally made the king of the gods. One of Marduk’s actions is to
create man (to do the work of the gods so that the gods can be at leisure).
In shorter myths, again Ea plays a role. Mostly as theone who knows everything’.
These include the myth of Adapa (a priest of Ea in his cult temple at Eridu); the Epic of
Anzu; the Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld and the myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal.
The relief and apotropaic figures below (Figure ) depict the god Enki
(Sumerian) or Ea (Akkadian). Enki was the god of productivity [31] and freshwater
streams, springs and lakes, as well as the abzu (or apsu – the subterranean fresh-
water ocean on which the earth supposedly floated; [31, 8) and, in this guise, was
symbolized as the (or a) fish [9].
Enki was also associated with wisdom, science, craftsmanship and magic and
this part of his nature was symbolised by a goat [9]. Several stone reliefs and cylin-
der seal impressions were found showing goat bearers, a goat in the scene, or a goat
shown below the god with water or fishes also represented.
Figure 12.
(a) Enki represented as a fish-man in stone relief and (b) as an apotropaic figure (source unknown).

Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale and…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531
This dual’ nature of the god ultimately resulted in the use of the symbol of the
goat-fish (literally ‘Carp-goat’) for the god Enki or Ea [32] (Akkadian suurmašû;
Neo-Sumerian Selekuid). Figures of this deity are named in certain apotropaic
(averting evil) rituals [21]. Although no Assyrian monumental art of this deity has
been found, the requirements for their manufacture (dimensions, gold leaf required
etc.) are alluded to in Nimrud texts for a temple of Nabu at Kalhu [32]. Artefacts
representing this deity are shown in Figures .
The boundary stones each show celestial objects (stars and crescent moons), mon-
uments or temples and deities. On all three boundary stones, the goat-fish (curved
or twisted horns and hooves) can be clearly distinguished from the dragon (which is
generally depicted with straight horns, talons or claws and a snake-like body).
Similarities between the renditions of goat-fish include one front leg bent back
and the other forward (slightly bent and lifted) (although both left leg and right leg
forward can be seen), cross-hatchings used to indicate the scales of a fish, twisted
splayed horns (except the foundation figurine, which may have had horns that are
now broken off). All the boundary stones’ goat-fish are without beards (goatees).
Figure 13.
(a–c) Mesopotamian boundary stones of the Kassite era, 1600–1150B.C.E. [38]. In (a) the goat-fish can be seen
on the bottom right, in (b) in the top register, and in (c) in the top register.
Figure 14.
(a) A goat-fish from Assur (housed in the Lowie Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley:
[24]: Plate XV). (b) Foundation figurine of a suurmašû, from Assur (Of beige sun-dried clay and had an
original coating of black wash). On the left side of the figurine is a one-line inscription that reads ‘Come in,
favourable hearing and compliance!’ ([32]: Plate V).
Goats (Capra)

. Discussion
From the preceding source material, several inferences relating to the perception
of ANE societies regarding goats can be made. The images shown by the material
artefacts, in which goats are portrayed, possess a decorative, symbolic, religious
or mythological motive. It is clearly discernible when goats are merely portrayed
as a livestock species. These include the goatherd tablets, the agricultural scene in
the cylinder seal from Mari, and the battle scene where goats and sheep probably
represent booty. It is clear from the (quantitatively) numerous depictions of goats
in domestic scenes that goats played an important role in the household and temple
economies of the time. In these scenes, it is clear that the goat represents itself and
no underlying ‘motif’ or meaning is intended.
Also, generally, goats are rendered very realistically (long, straight or curved
horns and upright tail) and in their characteristic attitudes since they were a famil-
iar sight in everyday life. This can be expected, since, in general, variations are most
often found in animals that the artists were not as familiar with (such as elephants
or giraffes) [33].
The animal-animal hybrid, the goat-fish, representing Ea or Enki, is most prob-
ably the basis of the constellation Capricorn. According to Roy [34], all evidence
points to the Sumero-Akkadian astronomer priests as the makers of the constel-
lations as we know them. Mesopotamia is found on the required latitude to have
seen all the constellations (some are not visible from the southern hemisphere),
the position of the stars at that time (3000–2000B.C.E.) would provide a perfect
fit for their observations, and the constellations themselves match almost every
deity in the Mesopotamian pantheon, including the goat-fish of Ea, now known as
Capricorn (so-named by the Greeks [35]).
In the myth of the creation of the world, Marduk, aside from creating man, also
defined the calendar, setting up the Zodiac and the sequence of celestial events
that would signify the changing seasons [34]. Star lists in cuneiform have been
found, detailing these constellations and their positions relative to each other. The
positions of the stars were used for navigation, divining the future and as a means
to map boundaries (constellations often appear on boundary stones). Gurshtein
[35] agrees that the goat-fish constellation has Sumerian origins. It is interesting to
note that the goat-fish icon is called a suurmašû [32], whereas Capricorn is called
SUHUR.MAS in tablets from Uruk [36].
Figure 15.
A cylinder seal, from the late Babylonian era, possibly depicts a worshipper before divine images, including the
suurmašû ([32]: Plate X) (housed in the Brooklyn Museum).

Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairytale and…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531
The use of goat imagery in the artefacts described show the goat in association
with the god Enki or Ea, and is used in libation vessels, temple furniture, plaques
and votive objects used in the worship of this god. But, it should be noted that it is
not the goat that is worshipped.
In literature too, although the goat is associated with the god Enki or Ea, it is
the god in his human form that acts in the myths—not the god in animal form.
The goat is used to represent the god in visual material or in association with him.
This finding is corroborated by Breniquet [18] who states that in iconography, the
animal is closely related to the god and acts as his substitute. Of more interest is her
statement that the facial features or appearance (physiognomy) and behaviour are
also those of the god. The animal is not merely an accessory, enabling the illiterate
to interpret the portrayals; the placement of the animal with the god renders the
reading unequivocal and is part of the essence of the god.
The Sumerian texts [16, 17] reveal that goats were considered intelligent, wise
and cunning. The genetic characteristics of goats such as their ability to reproduce
at a young age, their physical appearance (goatees) and their bawdiness are also
alluded to in everyday proverbs. Goats are thus used as metaphors for intelligence,
mischievousness, virility and fertility.
In each of the Mesopotamian myths described above, Ea or Enki plays the role
of the wise god, offering solutions to a myriad of problems. He is described as the
god ‘who knows everything’ and ‘the Lord of intelligence’. In the myth of Adapa, it
may be suggested that the role of Ea ‘who knows everything’ is to show man that it
is better not to have eternal life. Alternatively, here Ea could be assuming the role
of the ‘trickster’ often ascribed to goats in later myth and alluded to again in the
Aesopian-type dialogues with the lion and the fox in the Sumerian inscriptions
shown above.
In the Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld, the role of Ea in creating a ‘playboy’
may allude to the sexual nature of goats. And again in the myth of Nergal and
Ereshkigal, the story has an overtly sexual nature.
It is suggested by Root [20] that the use of rhyton as libation vessels originated
in the notion that imbibing liquid from a vessel resembling one of the more vital
animals would magically convey some of the animal’s own vitality to the drinker. It
is perhaps these qualities of intelligence and fertility that worshippers intended to
obtain when drinking from rhyton shaped as goats or from libation devices deco-
rated with goat motifs.
. Conclusion
The depiction of goats in the art and literature of the Ancient Near Eastern
cultures provides us with a means to understand mans attitudes towards goats
during this period in time. From the resources used, it is clear that goats fulfilled
an immensely important utilitarian function. The heritage of Enki (Ea) as the
constellation of Capricorn is significant. The use of goats in ritual and symbolism
has provided us with many motifs related to goats that are still in use today: these
include the motifs of fertility, intelligence and craftiness. From all accounts, Enki
(Ea) was a benevolent god, always available to solve problems, and often assisting
mankind to avert extinction. The imagery associated with Enki/Ea, as in the sacred
tree, the sweet waters, the apotropaic suurmašû and ultimately the goat, commu-
nicates Enki as a symbol of life and an averter of evil.
These are powerfully hopeful and positive images.
Goats (Capra)

© 2018 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Author details
MeridaRoets
Scientific Roets (PTY) Ltd, South Africa
*Address all correspondence to: merida@scientificroets.com
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Professor Paul Kruger of the Department of Ancient
Studies at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, for his guidance before
and during this study, which formed part of the Postgraduate Diploma in Ancient
Cultures at Stellenbosch University.

Goats in the Ancient Near East and Their Relationship with the Mythology, Fairy Tale and…
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82531
[1] Luke D.Brothers Grimm. Selected
Tales. London: Penguin Books; 1982.
p.429
[2] Sax B.The Frog King: On Legends,
Fables, Fairy Tales and Anecdotes of
Animals. NewYork: Pace University
Press; 1990. p.180
[3] Porter JR, Russel WMS.Animals in
Folklore. Cambridge: D.S.Brewer and
Rowman and Littlefield; 1978. p.292
[4] Mythology. 2012. Available from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth
[5] Aesop. Volume 1A—ARIT.In: The
New Universal Encyclopaedia. London:
Caxton. 1947. p.139
[6] Fairy Tale. 2012. Available from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fairy_tale
[7] Breasted JH.Ancient Times. A
History of the Early World. Boston:
Ginn and Company; 1944. p.823
[8] Stiebing WH.Ancient Near Eastern
History and Culture. NewYork: Pearson
Longman; 2009
[9] Karen Rhea N-N.Daily Life in
Ancient Mesopotamia. Massachusetts:
Hendrickson; 2002. p.346
[10] Diamond J. Guns, Germs, and
Steel: The Fates of Human Societies.
W.W. Norton & Company. 1997. pp.
168-174
[11] Gilbert AS.The native fauna of the
Ancient Near East. Ch. 1. In: Collins BJ,
editor. A History of the Animal World
in the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill;
2002. pp.3-75
[12] Zeder MA, Hesse B.The initial
domestication of goats (Capra hircus) in
the Zagros mountains 10,000 years ago.
Science. 2000;:2254-2257
[13] Davis SJM.The Archaeology of
Animals. London: B.T.Batsford; 1987
[14] Lessing E. 2012. Erich Lessing
Culture and Fine Arts Archives.
Available from: www.lessing-photo.com
[15] Foster BR.Animals in
mesopotamian literature. Ch. 9. In:
Collins BJ, editor. A History of the
Animal World in the Ancient Near East.
Leiden: Brill; 2002. pp.271-288
[16] Alster B.Proverbs of Ancient
Sumer: The Worlds Earliest Proverb
Collections. Vol. 1. Maryland: CDL
Press; 1997. p.338
[17] Alster B.Proverbs of Ancient
Sumer. The World’s Earliest Proverb
Collections. Vol. 2. Maryland: CDL
Press; 1997. p.548. With 133 plates
[18] Breniquet C.Animals in
mesopotamian art. Ch. 4. In: Collins BJ,
editor. A History of the Animal World
in the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill;
2002. pp.145-168
[19] McCall H.Mesopotamian Myths.
The Legendary Past. London: British
Museum Publications; 1990. p.80
[20] Root MC.Animals in mesopotamian
art. Ch. 5. In: Collins BJ, editor. A
History of the Animal World in the
Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill; 2002.
pp.169-209
[21] Green A.Neo-assyrian Apotropaic
Figures: Figurines, Rituals and
Monumental Art, with Special
Reference to the Figurines from the
Excavations of the British School of
Archaeology in Iraq at Nimrud. Iraq
45, 1: Papers of the 29 Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, London.
5-9 July 1982; 1983. pp.87-96
[22] Hatziminaglou Y, Boyazoglu J. The
goat in ancient civilisations: From the
References
Goats (Capra)

fertile crescent to the aegean sea. Small
Ruminant Research. 2004;:123-129
[23] Scurlock JA.Animals in ancient
mesopotamian religion. Ch. 13. In:
Collins BJ, editor. A History of the
Animal World in the Ancient Near East.
Leiden: Brill; 2002. pp.361-403
[24] Marchesi G, Marchetti N.
Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic
Mesopotamia. Indiana: Eisenbrauns;
2011. p.374
[25] Heinsohn G.The rise of blood
sacrifice and priest-kingship in
Mesopotamia: A cosmic decree’?
Religion. 1992;:109-134
[26] Winter IJ.On the problems of
Karatepe: The reliefs and their context.
Anatolian Studies. 1979;:115-151
[27] Collins BJ.The Puppy in Hittite
Ritual. The Oriental Institute: News
and Notes, The Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago; 1992;:1-6
[28] Atac M-A.Visual formula
and meaning in neo-Assyrian
relief sculpture. The Art Bulletin.
2006;(1):69-101
[29] Gunter AC.Animals in anatolian
art. Ch. 2. In: Collins BJ, editor. A
History of the Animal World in the
Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill; 2002.
pp.79-96
[30] Hunt D.The association of the
lady and the unicorn, and the hunting
mythology of the Caucasus. Folklore.
2003;:75-90
[31] Averbeck RE.Myth, ritual and order
in “Enki and the world order.” Journal
of the American Oriental Society.
2003;(4):757-771
[32] Green A.A note on the Assyrian
“goat-fish, “fish-man” and “fish-
woman. Iraq. 1986;:25-30
[33] Yapp WB.Animals in medieval
art: The Bayeux tapestry as an
example. Journal of Medieval History.
1987;:15-73
[34] Roy AE.The origin of the
constellations. Vistas in Astronomy.
1984;:171-197
[35] Gurshtein AA.On the origin of
the zodiacal constellations. Vistas in
Astronomy. 1993;:171-190
[36] Reiner E.Astral magic in Babylonia.
Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, New Series.
1995;(4):150
[37] Collins BJ.Animals in the religions
of ancient Anatolia. Ch. 11. In: Collins
BJ, editor. A History of the Animal
World in the Ancient Near East. Leiden:
Brill; 2002. pp.310-334
[38] Krupp EC.Fish tail. Sky &
Telescope. 1999;(1):93
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Time Line Preface Map Introduction General Information Historical Overview Writing, Education and Literature The Sciences Society, Part I: City Life, Country Life, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Life Society, Part II: Private Life Recreation Religion Government Economy The Legacy of Ancient Mesopotamia Glossary Selected Bibliography Index
Article
Neo-Assyrian relief sculpture is characterized by a distinctive network of visual formulas that functions almost like script, analogous to the hieroglyphic nature of Egyptian art. This quality of Assyrian art has not been studied thoroughly by scholars, who have mostly concentrated on visual narrative. On examination, it appears that the formulaic communication system of Assyrian art constitutes a highly sophisticated semiotic program that references important philosophical and religious concepts pertaining to Assyrian kingship. The art of Ashurnasirpal II can be seen as the apogee of the use of this semiotic, which takes different forms in the arts of later Assyrian kings.
Article
It is a good maxim that all controversial archaeological issues should be reviewed regularly in the light of new material and/or changing perspectives; and certainly one of the most controversial issues in the history of the early first millennium B.C. in the Near East has been the dating of the reliefs and inscriptions built into the two Citadel Gates at Karatepe. The site itself, set on the west bank of the Ceyhan River in the northeast corner of Cilicia, sits on a natural hill just south of a spur of the foothills that mark the beginning of the juncture of the Taurus and Amanus mountain ranges (cf. Maps, Figs. 2, 3). It was first discovered and explored in 1946 by a Turkish team, headed by H. Th. Bossert, investigating ancient road systems of the “Neo-Hittite” period. Active field seasons were initiated at Karatepe, along with soundings at the neighbouring site of Domuztepe on the opposite bank of the Ceyhan, and were continued through the mid-1950s, since which time restoration has been in process at Karatepe under the direction of Professor Halet Çambel of Istanbul University.
Article